Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?

You're empty, really. You think science and high-tech are omnipotent, but everything has limits, and I showed you on of the limits.
You're the one who doesn't see the answer. Again can any machine/computer exactly know what sentence, image or anything else I have created or I create inside my thoughts?
No,
These are pumped up news when it comes to human thoughts. Because can IBM or anyone else for that matter, exactly know what sentence, image or anything else I created inside my thoughts? No, it can't.
Look what it says in your link:
http://www.patexia.com/feed/1914

"First, the inability of any scientific way to actually verify what a person is thinking, coupled with the necessary imperfection of any technology."

Can any machine know exactly what I'm thinking about anything, or any image that I create inside my thoughts, not it can't. It's obvious thoughts and consciousness cannot be computed by any way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I dare to say, prove me wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. You claimed there are limits (of a particular type).

Yeah, and read the rest of it:

It's "obvious"? Yet all you can do is repeatedly state it.

No, you made the claim, it's up to you to support it with something more than your disbelief.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, you really think that scientists are going to read what exactly sentence, image or anything else you created in your brain?
You're too optimistic.
How are they suppose to know what sentence I just said inside my thoughts-that will never be possible.
As well as consciosness-totally impossible. no process/processes can explain why humans are self-aware/conscious.
This is far more than just sending signals though electrodes like they do today with bionic hands.
Note: Don't get me wrong too much. I'm simply hyper-critical, because I think it's critics is the one thing that pushes scientists to dig even deeper prove wrong to people like me.
But like everything, both science and high-tech both have limits, the main question is when will science and high-tech finally hit the upper limit?
Hmmm...
Cheers.

 

Because you say so?

Because you say so?

Right. Because that what science and scientists really care about: proving people like you wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well according to you we've hit those limits.

 

Of course I'm wrong, I never doubted on that, I hope I didn't cause too many unsubstantial claims. However, how exactly can you use self-awareness and use it? We're not cyborgs, and never will be, no matter what and how much we try to be.
Well we didn't hit the limit when you look it generally-you have nanotechnology, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, neuro-biology, and all forms of newer sciences, that have vast potential-so not we're not there yet, there is no final limit yet. But we hit the limit in out understanding of ourselves as unique beings/lifeforms in the universe, why are we here or where do we come from and questions like these-we will have yet to see if there are any civilizations there-science failed in this area big time. Also, science has failed to find solutions regarding environmental issues, climate change and ever-growing population which uses energy sources of this entire planet over its capacity-we take everything from nature, but we don't return it. However, none has ever discovered an code or whatever that can be linked to simulated universe or that you can simulate consciousness-so all the evidences are merely circumstancial they are not beyond reasonable doubt.
This is why I don't take this hypothesis seriously. And if I have a free will to think and to do whatever I want, than I and you and everyone else are beyond any programming computer simulation.
Cheers.

 

We've hit the limit?
So we're never going to find out anything new on this topic?
And you know this how?
Failed?
Are you another one of these people who expects all the answers in your own lifetime?

Science has failed? Or governments have failed to fund science in looking?

Correct. If you have free will. Which is something that has yet to be determined.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We as society have failed. Scientists are more egoistical today, than before, they are building their egos, however, there are more exceptions than I thought. Again how do you know why the universe is created, and why was created, sure this is more religious question-and believe it or not I'm an atheist. The science has yet to prove that universe has no meaning, and that the big bang theory is entirely correct. The problem with science-everything is theory, everything can be proven and disproven-this is pretty much like scientists say we don't know anything about anything.

Regarding free will-I myself maybe don't have a free will, but my brain does whatever it wants.

 

Science is not society.

Really?
Evidence please.

And one which science doesn't attempt to answer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think you're straying off-topic.

Um, no it's not.

Again -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

it seems

or is already here , now

not my philosophy , understand

but certainly many do

thats what they , the mainstream think , for the most part

to bad really because life has an energy of a different sort , this energy exists

sort of agree

see if you can find this Book , Cosmic Plasma , by Hannes Alfven , if you can , find it , buy it

if your interested in the book , let me know , I'll gladly give you the info to help you find

plasma is ion energy , and ion energy is the of movement of a protons and electrons

we live in a plasma Universe

 

I don't find it necessary myself

parallel Universe thinking

I see .....

the problem is though , you always need someone , a tech. around too update

yourself

 

disagree

logic certainly has the ability to flaw

because the reasoning was flawed in the first place

and since reasoning is the basis of logic

logic from the flawed reasoning is then flawed

 

logic can't recognize the flaw of the resoning because logic is confined

confined within the parameters of the knowledge which reason dwelled upon , in the first place

 

I recommend you to dig more about human consciousness, they really don't know anything about it, or how is it created. You're the one who saying empty words. Consciousness/self-awareness is just beyond the reach of human science.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9019-watching-the-brain-switch-off-selfawareness.html
Signs of consciousness in vegetative state:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...sciousness-in-people-in-vegetative-state.html

Or take a look at this, most likely you'll be happy:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-signature-discovered-spanning-the-brain.html

You won't find consciousness in the brain:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527427.100-you-wont-find-consciousness-in-the-brain.html

The entire article is copied here:
http://kolber.typepad.com/ethics_law_blog/2010/01/you-wont-find-consciousness-in-the-brain-.html

 

which leads to ? what sort of thinking

fine , but this is what worries me

what then for us Humans

the race of Humans , in the extremly big picture , within the Universe

 

Agreed.

No. Once again you are resorting to an argument you cannot support.

We do not know now. Please show that we will never know (as you have contended).

 

Russ Altman began his lecture in the Unsolved Mysteries in Medical Research series with a tough question and a snappy answer. "Why can't computers simulate a living cell? That's easy -- because it's too hard. Thank you."

When the chuckles died down, Altman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medical informatics at Stanford, began the real work of explaining why computers can't yet replace living organisms in medical research.

During his April 17 lecture, Altman broke down the question into steps, each with its own problems and potential solutions. But first he issued a warning.

"Most of us are not trained to do this," Altman said of the challenge of reassembling millions of bits of experimental data into a cohesive model system that could, for instance, predict the effects of untested medication on humans. "We're taught to be reductionists, but usually the more simple a model is, the more likely it is to be wrong."

Altman said the first step in the process is identifying the individual components -- such as proteins and pools of molecules -- that affect cellular functions. Then the interactions between the components and pools must be identified and the results represented in a map format. Finally, it's necessary to translate the relationships represented by the map into equations, which can then be used to analyze input data -- such as the presence of a new drug -- and predict cellular responses.

The Human Genome Project, a national effort to identify and characterize all human genetic material, has helped to identify many of the players. But Altman emphasized that alternative splicing and multifunctional proteins could inflate the effective number of components beyond the 35,000 genes that have been identified. He also pointed out that differences in the three-dimensional distribution of molecules within a cell can affect their function.

Identifying interactions between the components is extremely complicated, Altman said. Current methods of calculating interactions between isolated components, such as the Michaelis-Menton equation used in enzyme kinetics, are not accurate when applied to living systems, he said. And it's difficult to precisely quantify interactions between feedback pathways.

"As soon as you draw both a plus and a minus on the same page of a model, you've bought yourself a quantitative problem," Altman said. These quantitative tussles can hamstring any effort to generate accurate equations.

Finally, it's not clear whether the computational power exists to crunch the numbers of the billions of interactions that occur in a cell, and whether enough experimental data exists to support this goal, Altman said.

"We may have to give up our desire to have a computer system that permits 'one-stop shopping' and -- at least for the short term -- scale back our expectations," Altman said.

 

Waffle doesn't help your case.

 

When researchers associated with IBM announced that they had created a computer simulation that could be likened to a cat's brain, they hadn't talked beforehand to Ben Barres. They would have profited enormously from the conversation if they had.
n a widely covered announcement, IBM said that its researchers had simulated a brain with 1 billion neurons and 10 trillion synapses, which it noted was about the complexity of a cat's brain.
That led many writers to conclude that IBM computers could, as one put it, "simulate the thinking power" of a cat.
Getting a computer to work like any sort of brain, even little Fluffy's, would be an epic accomplishment. What IBM did, unfortunately, didn't even come close, as was pointed out a day later by other researchers, who published a letter scolding the company for what they described as a cynical PR stunt.

Any potential over-claiming aside, IBM's brain research follows the same pattern of similar explorations at many other centers. The logic of the approach goes something like this: We know the brain is composed of a network of cells called neurons, which pass messages to each other through connections known as synapses. If we build a model of those neurons and synapses in a computer, we will have a working double of a brain.

Which is where Ben Barres can shed some light. Barres is a neurobiologist and a specialist in something called glial cells. These are brain cells that are nearly as populous as neurons, but which are usually overlooked by researchers because they are presumed to be of little use; a kind of packing material that fills up space in between the neurons, where all the action is.
Barres, though, has made remarkable discoveries about glials. For example, if you take them away, neurons basically stop functioning properly. How? Why? We have no idea.

He does his research in the context of possible treatments for Alzheimer's, but the implications for modeling the brain are obvious, since you can't model something if you don't know how it works.

"We don't even begin to understand how neural circuits work. In fact, we don't even know what we don't know," he says. "The brain is very far from being modeled."

The computer can be a tempting metaphor for the brain, because of the superficial similarities. A computer has transistors and logic gates and networks of nodes; the various parts of the brain can be described in similar terms.

Barres says, though, that engineers seem to have a diminished ability to understand biology, in all its messy glory. Glial cells are one example, as they occupy much of the brain without our knowing barely the first thing about what they really do.

Another example, he says, involves the little matter of blood. Blood flow through the brain--its amplitudes and vagaries--has an enormous impact on the functioning of brain cells. But Barres said it's one that researchers have barely even begun to think about, much less model in a computer.

There are scores of neuroscientists like Barres, with deep knowledge of their special parts of the brain. Most of them will tell you a similar story, about how amazing the brain really is and about the utterly shallow nature of our current understanding of it.

Remember them the next time you read a story claiming some brain-like accomplishment of a computer. The only really human thing these programs are doing is attracting attention to themselves.

 

See my previous post...